MidSouth Shooters SupplyRotoMetals2RepackboxLoad Data
Titan ReloadingPBcastcoLee PrecisionInline Fabrication
Wideners Reloading Everything
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: What do you think they should do?

  1. #1
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West Ohio
    Posts
    1,575

    What do you think they should do?

    It looks like evolution has come up with the 7.62x51 NATO round. All its competitors have fallen by the wayside, the 30-40 Krag, 30-06, 303 British, 7.7 Jap and perhaps ultimately the mighty 7.62x54r may someday disappear in favor of its rimless ballistic twin. It would be hard to argue with how good a full power battle rifle cartridge the 7.62x51 is.
    Is it the very best caliber for this case? Would a 7mm-08 be a better full power battle rifle cartridge? What about a .270 6.8mm area?
    If the military is looking for a new full power load that is in the same class as the current 7.62x51 but wanting better…what do you think would be better?
    [

  2. #2
    Boolit Master



    TNsailorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Northeast Tennessee Hills
    Posts
    2,548
    The 7.62x51 does nothing the 30-06 can't do or better. It's main claim to fame is that it gives about the same velocity of the 30-06 up to 165 grain weight bullets and being slightly shorter, a soldier can carry a little more 7.62 ammo than 30-06. But then the same can be said about the .223 verses the .308. That being said, both the 7.62 and the 30-06 hit harder at longer range than the .223. They are also better on hardened targets and bunkers. As far as being rimless being an advantage, I really don't see it as such. The case length remains the same. I don't see the 7.62 needing to be improved all that much unless you can improve the ballistics or bullets without compromising the basic cartridge. As a battle cartridge it is excellent as is. I am an old dinosaur and carried the M1 Garand and would not feel handicapped about going in harms way with one now. But I would not turn up my nose at an M14 either. There are times that full auto is handy, like when trouble is close enough to smell him. In that situation, I'll take a good 12 gauge pump or semi-auto over a .223. my opinion anyway, james

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Texas by God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    14,316
    If it ain't broke don't fix it. The 7.62 Nato/.308 Win is perfect for its intended role on the battlefield or hunting grounds.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Boolit Grand Master

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    14,420
    The one problem with the above mentioned cartridges is the recoil they generate. Back when they were in use troops usually had some shooting experience and training was easier to a point. Now the military is getting recruits who may never have handled a firearm of any kind. Training is harder and the heavier recoil adds to this. The M16 with its low bore to centerline and cartridge make recoil almost nonexistent removing one variable from training. Weight of ammo is even more important with the pack load they are carrying today also. Shaving a few pounds is a big plus especially in the heat and cold. Yes the 7.62 X51 round is accurate efficient and has a very useable range but the weight and recoil restrict it somewhat also. The M14 was an excellent rifle in 7.62 nato, and the AR 10 is possibly better as it has the low bore centerline of the M16 also.

  5. #5
    Boolit Master


    Bloodman14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lebanon, Mo.
    Posts
    1,319
    Build an American version of the AK-47 or SKS, and let the enemy supply the ammo! The x39 cartridge is a handy, hard hitting, intermediate power round that is perfect for the urban terrain in the Middle East.
    Lead Forever!


    The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms.' If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -Ken Konecki, July 27, 1992

    John Galt was here.

    "Politics is the art of postponing an answer until it is no longer relevant". (From the movie 'Red Tails')

  6. #6
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    714
    I am not sure I understand the question? As for the rifle I would prefer to carry, my first choice is the Match M14s I shot in the early 1980s. In 1982 and 1984 I was one of the five members of my state High Power Rifle Team to shoot 200, 300 and 600 yards at Camp Perry with iron sights with my Match M14.

    In July 1965 I was issued a Mattel 16, 5.56MM and did not like it then and do not yet today! Nuff said. I prefer a Garand or M14 over the "varmit round" M16. Unfortunately, most recruits have had no firearms experience before they enter the military and you cannot make a rifleman in three days on the range! The alternative is "Spray and Pray", therefore we now have the three-round burst to hold down ammo consumption by soldiers who cannot hit what they aim at.

    Adam
    Last edited by Adam Helmer; 10-16-2017 at 01:40 PM.

  7. #7
    Boolit Master

    lefty o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,187
    the problem is a lack of training. even petite ladies can handle a service rifle in .308 if they get some actual training, instead of the spray and pray basics they get.

  8. #8
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Another reason they came up with the 7.62x51 is it's more suitable for machine gun actions then the longer 30-06, althought the 06 seamed to run good in them. Maybe it had something to do with the longer stroke of the action.

    Not that I'm supporting the M16, but if they had the M16's we have today, that is with ALL the bugs out of them, little heavier barrel, and the excellent sights, plus the chrome lined chambers and bore......in addition to better ammo then they had in the beginning of it's use in Vietnam.........PLUS if they hadn't told the troops in the beginning it didn't have to be cleaned and issued cleaning supplies and manuals when it first appear, I believe their would be less negative comments about it in the beginning.

    The government though we shot up too much ammon in Vietnam, thus the comments "spray n pray" and put the 3 round burst in.

    When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do.

    Me, I'd liked to have had the M14 with more a selection of ammo and FMJ's with thinner jackets to blow up like the 5.56 did...but that's asking too much especially when you don't know ahead of time what the circumstances may be.

  9. #9
    Boolit Master 308Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    1,488
    IMHO, there is only one cartridge in the 7.62x51 class that has enough of an advantage to replace it, and that is the 6.5 Creedmoor.

    *Flame On*

  10. #10
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West Ohio
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by 308Jeff View Post
    IMHO, there is only one cartridge in the 7.62x51 class that has enough of an advantage to replace it, and that is the 6.5 Creedmoor.

    *Flame On*
    Or maybe the 6.5x47mm Lapua which is even more efficient than the 6.5 Creedmoor. Not much difference between them on paper.
    [

  11. #11
    Boolit Master
    nicholst55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Metro Area
    Posts
    3,604
    A plastic, telescoped case 6.5mm cartridge is Big Army's current flavor of the week. The search for an off-the-shelf 7.62mm battle rifle was last week/month.
    Service members, veterans and those concerned about their mental health can call the Veterans Crisis Line to speak to trained professionals. To talk to someone, call 1-800-273-8255 and Press 1, send a text message to 838255 or chat at VeteransCrisisLine.net/Chat.

    If you or someone you know might be at risk of suicide, there is help. Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255, text a crisis counselor at 741741 or visit suicidepreventionlifeline.org.

  12. #12
    Boolit Grand Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    21,289
    "When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do."

    Have to disagree.

    I was in Viet Nam in early '65 and then on to other target rich environments through out the world. Early on we had some of the "green guns" (early EXM16s with 14" twist barrels) along with XM16s (had 12" twist barrels). There was a noticeable difference in terminal effect with issue M193 5.56 between the 12 and 14" twist barrels. We didn't understand why at the time but since then I have shot a lot of things (animate and inanimate) with M193 ammunition out of 12, 14 and 9" twist barrels to know why. M193 out of 14" twist barrels did the greatest damage causing the most severe wound. However, the damage done from 7.62 NATO M80 out of M14s or M60s was far greater, especially if the bullets had passed through "concealment" before hitting Nathanial or Victor. I've seen too many enemy bodies that were shot with both to believe otherwise.

    Like we paraphrased to old commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card or Visa.....accepted world wide......never leave home with out it........"

    We also had quite a few M14s as when we deployed from Okinawa in May there were enough Xm16s for everyone.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  13. #13
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gibson View Post
    "When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do."

    Have to disagree.

    I was in Viet Nam in early '65 and then on to other target rich environments through out the world. Early on we had some of the "green guns" (early EXM16s with 14" twist barrels) along with XM16s (had 12" twist barrels). There was a noticeable difference in terminal effect with issue M193 5.56 between the 12 and 14" twist barrels. We didn't understand why at the time but since then I have shot a lot of things (animate and inanimate) with M193 ammunition out of 12, 14 and 9" twist barrels to know why. M193 out of 14" twist barrels did the greatest damage causing the most severe wound. However, the damage done from 7.62 NATO M80 out of M14s or M60s was far greater, especially if the bullets had passed through "concealment" before hitting Nathanial or Victor. I've seen too many enemy bodies that were shot with both to believe otherwise.

    Like we paraphrased to old commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card or Visa.....accepted world wide......never leave home with out it........"

    We also had quite a few M14s as when we deployed from Okinawa in May there were enough Xm16s for everyone.
    Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated.

    I would think your rifle should have been marked XM instead of EX.
    The first few Colt serial numbers (001-100) were toolroom prototypes and mules, and numbers were reused, and some were built on unnumbered receivers. Most of these were destroyed.
    The first ~15,000 guns were, as the memo notes, marked as “Armalite AR-15” and these weapons went to the USAF for Security Police use and for testing by the services, including the Project AGILE tests and Vietnam tests by USSF.
    The Model 03 Army Rifle was rollmarked XM16E1 until the rifle was type standardized as M16A1 on 28 Feb 1967. (The nature of mass production being what it is, this rollmark change took place over a period of months, and is uncorrelated with any physical change to the rifle).
    The Model 04 Air Force Rifle is rollmarked M16.
    The 10,000 guns in the 900k range are believed to include most experimental GX guns and all XM177/E1/E2 guns. We have observed GX’s outside this range. GX’s are tool-room prototypes with a four digit number which is reportedly their master drawing. We believe that there are multiple GXs with the same number. There are also GXs that also have a serial number as well as the GX number. A lot of the GXs have serial numbers in the 14xxx range. Prior to 1969 some mil experimentals were made with no serial numbers, and there are duplicate serial numbers in this area as well.
    The British contract guns were originally intended for special operations forces including the SAS and SBS.

  14. #14
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Here's a picture of even an earlier rifle. Notice it's marked GX. Those were the protypes and mules. Supposedly most were destroyed.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Colt-GX-5857.jpg 
Views:	68 
Size:	86.6 KB 
ID:	205996

  15. #15
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South West Ohio
    Posts
    1,575
    I'm thinking that a full power battle rifle should be the 7.62x51 NATO necked down to .270. It's better ballistically, a bit lighter to carry and they can claim they did something. All hail the 6.8x51 NATO!
    [

  16. #16
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,441
    Quote Originally Posted by vzerone View Post
    Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated.
    .
    Per various gun rags like the Rifleman the claim was that the 55 grain ball M193 bullet was designed too be base heavy so when fired from the initial designed 14 twist barrels the bullet was marginally stabile and it would tumble on impact. The 14 twist proved to be too marginal and was changed to 12 twist.

    While I have spent a far amount of time in a combat zone I was always inside the wire on airbases and have zero first hand experience with the performance of combat rounds. This is second hand but per the guys that used both the M193 55 grain in 12 twist barrels and the later M855 62 green tip out of 7 twist barrels the stopping performance of the 55's and 12 twist was noticeable better than the 62's out of 7 twist barrels but both were lacking compared to the 7.62 x 51 NATO round.

    In my collection I have a very nice 100% original and correct 601 upper, several original and correct 604's and one 605 upper with a later rifle barrel.
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 10-16-2017 at 06:41 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Tecs View Post
    Per various gun rags like the Rifleman the claim was that the 55 grain ball M193 bullet was designed too be base heavy so when fired from the initial designed 14 twist barrels the bullet was marginally stabile and it would tumble on impact. The 14 twist proved to be too marginal and was changed to 12 twist.

    While I have spent a far amount of time in a combat zone I was always inside the wire on airbases and have zero first hand experience with the performance of combat rounds. This is second hand but per the guys that used both the M193 55 grain in 12 twist barrels and the later M855 62 green tip out of 7 twist barrels the stopping performance of the 55's and 12 twist was noticeable better than the 62's out of 7 twist barrels but both were lacking compared to the 7.62 x 51 NATO round.

    In my collection I have a very nice 100% original and correct 601 upper, several original and correct 604's and one 605 upper with a later rifle barrel.
    M-Tecs I've also heard that the scored the M193's pretty good that they fragmented upon hitting tissue. Guess that would mean they had thin jackets.

  18. #18
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,441
    Quote Originally Posted by vzerone View Post
    M-Tecs I've also heard that the scored the M193's pretty good that they fragmented upon hitting tissue. Guess that would mean they had thin jackets.
    During WWII and Korea ammo was hard to get it was common to score or cut the point off of 30 cal FMJ's so they would expand.

    Thin jacket is a relative term. The 55 grain M193 bullet ricochets like crazy. In my early days I tried shooting prairie dogs with them.

    I have a couple of native American friends that use M193 exclusively for Elk and Moose. They claim two or three quick shots into the lungs works is very effective. I am afraid to ask but I suspect that at least one use a liberated M16 from Nam.

    Spent some time with some Eskimo's this summer. They use M193 for Caribou doing the same.

    Some interesting info here:

    http://www.brassfetcher.com/Rifles/5.56mm/5.56mm.html

  19. #19
    Boolit Master
    woodbutcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LaFollette Tn
    Posts
    1,398
    This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
    Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
    Leo
    People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election.
    Otto von Bismarck

  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbutcher View Post
    This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
    Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
    Leo
    You're right about the powder. The ball powder, at first, had too much calcium in it, which was used to increase powder shelf life. It was a very high percentage and then they found out it was fouling the M16 badly and dropped it way down.

    I can't remember the powder number exactly, but it was Dupont 4475. Then they went to the ball powder, but continues using the 4475 through to the early 60's.

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check